Decided on February 27,1973

SIRI DEI Respondents


- (1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment.
(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for creating a charge upon the properties described in schedule B of the plaint for their maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50-00 per month and for Rs. 2,000-00 towards the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2. The Plaint case, in short is, as follows: plaintiff No. 1 is the wife and plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of defendant No. 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are first cousins. Defendant No. 1 is separate in mess and property from defendant No. 2 since the time of their fathers. The properties described in Schedule B of the plaint belong to defendant No. 2 alone. Defendant no. I wanted his son to be adopted by defendant No. 2. Plaintiff No. 1 opposed this and hence defendant No. 1 bore a grudge against plaintiff No. 1. Defendant no. 1, therefore, instigated defendant No. 2 to ill-treat the plaintiffs and to stop maintaining them. Both defendants Nos: 1 and 2 are opium addicts. Under the influence of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed in respect of the entire B schedule properties in favour of defendant No. 1 on 24-6-63. This sale deed is a collusive and sham transaction not sup-ported by consideration. Defendant No. 2 thereafter abandoned the plaintiffs and started living with defendant No. 1 without providing maintenance for the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 took the sale deed from defendant No. 2 with full knowledge that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance and to the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2 out of the income of the B Schedule properties. Hence, the said Properties are liable to be charged for the plaintiff's maintenance and for the marriage expenses of plaintiff no. 2. Defendant No. 1 therefore, is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50. 00 per month to the plaintiffs for their maintenance and to pay Rs. 2,000. 00 for the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2 out of the income of the properties covered by the sale deed in his favour. On these allegations the plaintiffs claim the relief as mentioned above.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. T alone contested the suit and defendant No. 2 remained ex parte.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.